CIT v. Daksha Ramanlal

197 ITR 123High Court1992#12351 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 45 Section 48(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 55 cost of improvement section 48 transfer section 143(2)company business person interest section 143(3)india

Judgments citing CIT v. Daksha Ramanlal

ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Arka Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.58/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Vs. Arka Properties (P) Ltd Ward 1 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafca7411H (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu, सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 23/11/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 1 Day By The Revenue In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Cause Of Delay. We Have Heard The Learned Dr As Well As The Learned Ar On The Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Has Not Objected For Condonation Of Delay Of One Day In Filing

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 45

…8 CTR 116)(Cal.) 20) CIT vs. Abrar Alvi (247 ITR 312) 21) Chincholi Guru Raja Char Venkatesh (149 Taxmann.com 90 (Kar.) 22) N. Raja Rajan – 120 Taxmann.com 402 (Mad) 23) Income Tax Officer vs. Taj Services (P) Ltd (143 TTJ 70) (Mum.) 24) CIT vs.Daksha Ramlal (197 ITR 123) (Guj.) 7. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material available on record. The solitary issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is whether the learned CIT (A) is justified in allowing the claim of deduction in respect of the amount paid to the bank to remove the encumbrance created by way of guarantee agreement and m…

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 294/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 48

…ed in subsequent decisions of the High Court in Salay Mohamad Ibrahim Sait v. ITO [1994] 210 ITR 700 (Ker.) and K.V. Idiculla v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 386 / 81 Taxman 190 . A contrary view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Daksha Ramanlal [1992] 197 ITR 123 . In taking the view that in a case where the property has been mortgaged by the previous owner during his lifetime and the assessee, after inheriting the same, has discharged the mortgage debt, the amount paid by him for the purpose of clearing off the mortgage is not deductible for the purpose of computation of capital gains, the Kerala High Co…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3895/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bledcit –Circle – 10(1) V. M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd New Delhi Off. 101, Real Tech Park Sector-30, Vashi, Near Railway Station Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd V. Dcit –Circle – 12(1) Now 10(1) C/O. M/S. Saraf & Chandra (C.A) Room No. 416-A Bharat Ins. Bldg, 3Rd Floor, 15-A Central Revenue Building Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 01 I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Pan: Aadcg8569L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…s of Rs.5,69,87,910/- and a total loss of Rs.5,79,87,398/-. The assessee worked out the capital gain on the basis of the addition to cost of acquisition in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Daksha Ramanlal reported in (1992) 197 ITR 123 (Guj) which has been approved by the Hon. Supreme court in the case of R. M. Arunachalam Vs CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC) at Page 239. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the repayment loan to Standard Chartered Bank which was an amount of Rs.78 Crores in 2007. The bifurcation is as under: Prin. Rs.23.65,00,000/- Interest Rs.54,35,00,000/-…

M/S. Golden Falcon Pacific Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)

Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2844/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2844/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hirabai Bhausaheb Katore, Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka- Rahata, Ahmednagar-423 109. Pan : Csgpk1457F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri B. B. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

…ise and withdrawal of purses on terms of payment of Rs. 36,00,000/-. 4 A.Y.2013-14 2.4 The Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) Miss Daun Dadabhoy Kapadia Vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651(SC) (b) CIT Vs. Daksha Ramanlal (1992) 197 ITR 123 ( Guj.) (c) R.M Arunachalam Vs. CIT, 227 ITR 222(SC) (d) CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah 355 ITR 474 ( Bom) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. 4. Feeing aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of…

Perfect Thread Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4964/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu Vice Presedent,(As) Shri D. Karunakar Rao & Shri Amit Shukla, Sh. Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarperfect Thread Mills Ltd Vs Dcit, 8(2), Mumbai 201, Millenium Plaza Behind Sakinaka Telephone Exchange, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72 Pan: Aaacp6449E Appellant Respondednt

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 255(4)Section 48

…rtgage debt by him prior to transfer of the property would not entitle him to claim deduction under section 48 of the Act because in such a case he did not acquire any interest in property subsequent to his acquiring the same. In CIT u. Daksha Ramanlal [1992] 197 ITR 123, the Gujarat High Court has rightly held that the payment made by a person for the purpose of clearing off the mortgage created by the previous owner is to be treated as cost of acquisition of the interest of the mortgage in the property and is deductible under section 48 of the Act". (P. 239) (emphasis added) Thus, the income applied in liquidat…

Better Option Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

…cuted on the names of the 3rd parties, any amount realized on account of such a right to acquire the property is liable to be taxed in the hands of M/s Smart Estates. For this purpose Ld. AR placed reliance on the additions reported in CIT vs. Daksha Ramanlal 197 ITR 123 and also CIT vs. Ramgopal to 90 Taxman 205 (Delhi), CIT vs. Laxmi Devi to 96 ITR 363 (MP). 11 20. Further, by placing reliance on the edition reported in CIT vs. Motor And General Stores Private Limited 66 ITR 692 (SC) and CIT vs. BM Khanna 72 ITR 603, Ld. AR submitted that when the transactions are embodied in a document, the liability to tax de…

Pralad Das Mittal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 5861/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kambleay: 2007-08 A N D Ay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.D.Mittal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.D.R

Section 24Section 55(2)

…owed for cost of improvement of the property is allowable u/s 24(b) of the Act. (i) Shri Shyam Gopal in ITA 4894/Del/2004 Delhi E Bench of the ITAT order dt.November, 2006. (ii) RM Arunachalam vs. CIT (SC) 227 ITR 222 (iii) CIT vs. Daksha Raman Lal (Gujarat) 197 ITR 123 judgement dt.Feb.25, 1992 6.1. The Ld.Sr.D.R. submitted that, the valuation of the property in the gift deed was only Rs.47,62,000/- and that the assessee has not lead any evidence in support of his claim that depressing factors were taken into consideration while fixing the value of the property for the purpose of gift. It was emphasised that t…